If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hey, hold on pretty soon AXPW announce their stock performance. My guess is another substantial loss. My concern is that it takes such a small amount to move the stock he may just buying it and say its doing good and dump it the next day....after all its on the pink equivalent board. I wish I could short AXPW, but shorting pinks/OCTBB is a bad idea and finding someone to actually buy the stock hard too (very few if any brokerage firms allow it and others require a substantial escrow)- I guess that's what saved them from tanking sooner, less short interest.

With AXPW now trading for 2 short bits ($0.20), my guess is another JP article is coming. Even more than bashing Tesla, he's got his castle to keep. Numbers look like Axion needs to do another capital raise - the last one hit the stock price pretty hard, so with A123 and many other battery makers in trouble, AXPW is in a world of hurt.

This article was linked by Andrew Sullivan in his widely read blog on the Daily Beast this morning. Not surprisingly, the author leaves Tesla completely out of the equation until the very end because Tesla's results on range, popularity and financial solvency cut against his every argument:

Technical success of electrics comes down, most fundamentally, to batteries. The lithium-ion battery, with its many flaws, is still the only relatively lightweight commercial option and Edison’s dream of a perfect car battery is now more than a century old. Bold plans come and go: a 1980 report on the introduction of electric vehicles in the United States predicted 1–2 million units in sales by 1985 and as many 11–13 million fully electric cars by the year 2000. But by the end of 2012, the United States had about 50,000 electrics on the road, no more than 0.03 percent of all light-duty vehicles licensed to operate in the country. Undaunted, a campaigning President Obama did not repeal his 2011 State of the Union goal of putting 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

I don't know, it certainly had a negative slant but was mostly factually accurate, and did mention Tesla before the end:
Again, accurate.

It recycled the Reuters story about Volt's costing ~$80,000 each to produce. He loosely chains that to reality with his comment that it might take years before GM makes money, but the ~$80,000 number is flawed and deeply debatable even on its own terms.

As to Tesla, he compared it to Fiskar and stated that their problems are somehow equivalent, when in fact the market trajectory of the two companies are diametrically opposite from one another. Cutting your production forecast because you are a few weeks behind your planned schedule does not make you equivalent to a company flirting with bankruptcy and searching for a buyer willing to save it.

And another extended-range electric vehicle, the high-end Fisker Karma, has fared much worse. Consumer Reports found the $107,000 car, developed with a $529 million loan from the U.S. government and built in Finland, is full of design flaws and did not recommend its purchase. The car’s battery failed during the Consumer Reports test drive and Fisker subsequently replaced all of its 2012 Karma batteries. Then, on October 16, the manufacturer of the substandard lithium-ion battery used in the Karma, A123 Systems, (recipient of a U.S. federal grant worth $249 million in 2009) filed for bankruptcy.

The bold portions of that paragraph are the conceptual framework of that paragraph, with the rest being descriptive filler. He then transitions to Tesla with the following -

And another American true electric car has not done any better: Tesla’s deliveries for 2012 were cut from 5,000 to 2,700–3,250, due to production problems.

Setting aside the false equivalency between bankrupt and failing concerns, like Fiskar or A123 Systems, and a rapidly growing company like Tesla, this linkage is factually false in another sense because the author is also equating Tesla with Fiskar's quality problems. Consumer Reports is on record calling the Model S amazing and addictive. There is nothing factual about those comparisons.

It recycled the Reuters story about Volt's costing ~$80,000 each to produce. He loosely chains that to reality with his comment that it might take years before GM makes money, but the ~$80,000 number is flawed and deeply debatable even on its own terms.

Until volume increases that number may be accurate. Even without development costs we don't know what the Volt is costing GM to build at this point.

As to Tesla, he compared it to Fiskar and stated that their problems are somehow equivalent, when in fact the market trajectory of the two companies are diametrically opposite from one another. Cutting your production forecast because you are a few weeks behind your planned schedule does not make you equivalent to a company flirting with bankruptcy and searching for a buyer willing to save it.

The bold portions of that paragraph are the conceptual framework of that paragraph, with the rest being descriptive filler. He then transitions to Tesla with the following -

Setting aside the false equivalency between bankrupt and failing concerns, like Fiskar or A123 Systems, and a rapidly growing company like Tesla, this linkage is factually false in another sense because the author is also equating Tesla with Fiskar's quality problems. Consumer Reports is on record calling the Model S amazing and addictive. There is nothing factual about those comparisons.

Good point on the quality comparisons, but the factual data on Tesla is accurate. As I said it skews negative but I still say the data points are fairly accurate.

Counter to what the title claims, this discovery of existing failure mechanisms in lithium cells does not mean they will fail sooner than expected, it just means we've now uncovered another method of failure, which will most likely lead to future improvements.

He needs to do more research and find out that some of these Lithium batteries have so little Lithium in them it is not worth talking about. I was reading the paperwork from our supplier and the Manufacturers Safety Data Sheet. I would put the percentage here but I have this in my office. I work with a lot of 18630 type Lithium cells same as Tesla'a.